An underlying assumption here seems to be not just that people deserve to make a living, but that forgiveness is inherently good. While this is a common axiom in the West, it is not obvious to me that this moral claim is correct.
Two issues regarding communications:
On a macro level: “Reputation” is not a vanity consideration. It is integral to the theory of change of many EA orgs, particularly those focused on AI policy. A random legislative staffer is unlikely to see the comments on this post, but they may see the upcoming Netflix series on FTX. A google search on “FTX and EA” now reveals this post: https://whatweare.substack.com/p/no-one-is-going-to-save-the-ea-brand. It’s not impossible to imagine this hiring decision making it harder for AI policy orgs to secure meetings with staffers to advance important safety legislation.
On a micro level: Most people in EA probably would have opposed this hire anyway, but this press release seems to have only engendered more concern and, frankly, confusion. Several people have sought clarity regarding the rationale for the hire as this statement implied a mixture of personal considerations. I was most perplexed by the section on transparency, which reads: “I apologize for our minor deception, in using a pseudonym over the last couple months. I still endorse having done this”. These two sentences seem contradictory and read as something like: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”
I understand why some EAs might be skeptical about the importance of communications. After all, lots of ineffective organizations have amazing comms. While good comms does not necessarily imply good work, bad comms often does indeed imply a real judgement issue, which one might reasonably expect would affect the core work as well.
An underlying assumption here seems to be not just that people deserve to make a living, but that forgiveness is inherently good. While this is a common axiom in the West, it is not obvious to me that this moral claim is correct.
Two issues regarding communications:
On a macro level: “Reputation” is not a vanity consideration. It is integral to the theory of change of many EA orgs, particularly those focused on AI policy. A random legislative staffer is unlikely to see the comments on this post, but they may see the upcoming Netflix series on FTX. A google search on “FTX and EA” now reveals this post: https://whatweare.substack.com/p/no-one-is-going-to-save-the-ea-brand. It’s not impossible to imagine this hiring decision making it harder for AI policy orgs to secure meetings with staffers to advance important safety legislation.
On a micro level: Most people in EA probably would have opposed this hire anyway, but this press release seems to have only engendered more concern and, frankly, confusion. Several people have sought clarity regarding the rationale for the hire as this statement implied a mixture of personal considerations. I was most perplexed by the section on transparency, which reads: “I apologize for our minor deception, in using a pseudonym over the last couple months. I still endorse having done this”. These two sentences seem contradictory and read as something like: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”
I understand why some EAs might be skeptical about the importance of communications. After all, lots of ineffective organizations have amazing comms. While good comms does not necessarily imply good work, bad comms often does indeed imply a real judgement issue, which one might reasonably expect would affect the core work as well.